Ghost

[MCChris]

I'm not sure the comparison to horror flicks is analogous. The point of such films is to scare the audience. I don't think that's the reason behind musical acts draped in the occult.

On the other hand, I suppose if an entertainer says they want to capitalize on the attention garnered by the shock value, then perhaps that's all there is to it and I'm seeing it from the wrong perspective. Maybe it's all marketing BS and those musicians go for the shock value for the same reason some children get into trouble, i.e. they believe it's the only way they'll get any attention at all. It would be too bad if they felt that way, because some of them make pretty good music capable of standing on its own.

I think it's as simple as there are some entertainers who prefer to portray the darker elements of mankind. I've just never understood the double standard of musicians facing more scrutiny than filmmakers. The belief seems to be that music is literal and movies/TV are fictitious because of the acting element. It's okay to write the screenplay to "The Exorcist," but it's not okay to write the lyrics on a Venom album. It's okay to portray cops being killed "Reservoir Dogs," but it's not okay for Ice-T to do the same in "Cop Killer."

[diablo175]

Love or hate the lyrical content and themes, their music is interesting to me and I am of sufficient intelligence (I think... ) to be able to listen to their stuff and still maintain my own perspectives regardless of their message.

To quote an earlier version of a supposed "satanic" band- "I know, it's only Rock n Roll, but I like it!"

[FGJ]

Yeah, I agree with you there, diablo175, which is why it never deterred me from listening to those groups. I would never suggest such groups cannot make good music, because many are obviously quite talented.

In fact, I can even see the marketing angle for those who want to capitalize on controversy, though I think it unfortunate if a musician felt he must resort to controversy to get attention. As a full-time professional artist, I know the difficulty in promoting one's work, and I know I could get far more attention doing subject matter that I would probably be embarrassed to show to my parents or would want to hide from my children (though that's just me). However, I would rather that my clients value my work for its quality and not because of any attention-grabbing gimmick (again, that's just a personal choice).

Perhaps it's simply the case that there is an unspoken, assumed agreement between the musician and his fans wherein both parties know that the gimmick only exists to attract controversial attention from 'outsiders' (e.g., parents, the media, etc.) and neither musician nor fan really takes the occultic image seriously? -- After all, that's how I would defend it when I was a kid.

In the end, maybe I just can't understand why anyone wants attention so badly that they prefer negative attention than no attention at all. I can understand when children behave badly because they crave attention from apathetic parents, but I don't understand that kind of behavior from adults.

When I was a kid, I read an article in Reader's Digest which influenced my thinking and stuck with me my whole life. The article was about how youth tried to be "different" by getting tattoos, piercings, coloring their hair purple, and so forth. The author made the salient point that such things do not distinguish a person, because they required no effort and signified no accomplishment on the part of the individual. The author suggested that if one wanted to be truly different in a significant sense, he should strive for excellence, "excellence" being more rare than purple hair. Doing something truly exceptional was a virtue to be strived for and encouraged. And I can't help but think that if anyone on this board were asked, "would you prefer to be known for playing guitar like a virtuoso, or would you rather be remembered as the guy that stood on stage with the pointy hat and the funny mask while paying tribute to the devil?", I suspect most would opt for the former because we recognize the value of excellence over negative gimmickry.

[BadgerDave]

If wearing a pointy hat gets me airplay, sales and packed concert halls, I'm in. Image and visuals have been intergral to rock music from its inception. Pseudo Satanism is a a pose that's been effective in attracting attention for decades. Negative or threatening imagery sells. In Ghost's case, I think it works very well

I can certainly understand how it would be too negative for some. I see it as the equivalent of dressing up for Halloween or wearing black leather motorcycle gear. Just a matter of degree.

[Dasein]

Yeah, I agree with you there, diablo175, which is why it never deterred me from listening to those groups. I would never suggest such groups cannot make good music, because many are obviously quite talented.

In fact, I can even see the marketing angle for those who want to capitalize on controversy, though I think it unfortunate if a musician felt he must resort to controversy to get attention....

There's zero controversy here -- absolutely zero. Its audience isn't in any way being attracted to the forbidden or the dark or the controversial - they are here purely for escapist fun. It's theater. It has more in common with Jets and Sharks, and even 7 Brides for 7 brothers, than anything remotely close to Satanic practice.

Theater asks its audience to suspend disbelief and be entertained and engaged in a very liminal space outside of "real life". Theater productions are called plays - and this is indeed "play". It's not "Satanic" (if there even is such a thing) anymore than your kid dressing up as a vampire on Halloween is. This is camp - play - fun - escapism. In that sense its actually joyous and cathartic much like the early Greek dramas were. You need Dionysus to balance with Apollo. I'd argue that if anything this is good for Christians because it at least takes us out of the realm of the secular back into the sacred (even if it's just fantasy). There might be two 14 year old kids and one 22 year old pothead that think there's something powerful and dark going on here but the rest of the audience is wearing their robes on Tuesday night's show flashing devil horns - going for Sushi on Wednesday, Wearing cowboy hats on Thursday's country Jam, and Attending Ted lectures on Friday... fun is fun.

[FGJ]

Sure, I understand that for the fans there's no controversy. I totally get that. I even totally understand the fun of make-believe and role-playing. But as LordOfTheThighs well noted, there's some serious frog-boiling going on if one believes there is any equivalence to, for example, wearing cowboy hats and devil-worship as far as escapism goes (the example used being mine, not his).

Just curious:

Would anyone attend a concert in which the theme centered around a faux act of child-molestation being portrayed in a positive light and/or encouraged on stage? Does anyone see any entertainment value in that? If so, how so? If not, why not?

[Dasein]

Sure, I understand that for the fans there's no controversy. I totally get that. I even totally understand the fun of make-believe and role-playing. But as LordOfTheThighs well noted, there's some serious frog-boiling going on if one believes there is any equivalence to, for example, wearing cowboy hats and devil-worship as far as escapism goes (the example used being mine, not his).

Just curious:

Would anyone attend a concert in which the theme centered around a faux act of child-molestation being portrayed in a positive light and/or encouraged on stage? Does anyone see any entertainment value in that? If so, how so? If not, why not?

As an atheist (and former theist) -- Ghost to me is as escapist and make believe as a praise and worship band. Because neither entity (God or Devil) exist in my belief.

And as far as child molestation goes - I'll answer that three ways -----

#1 -- Everytime they paraded Michael Jackson around on TV with kids post allegations we were essentially endorsing child molestation which seems to be okay as long as you can dance a little.

#2 -- If you've ever asked your lady to wear a plaid skirt you've essentially crossed that line already

#3 -- Didn't both Winger and The Beatles already take us there?

[FGJ]

Sure, I never doubted that, to fans, such an act represents escapism. Nor are my comments addressing the ontology off theism. My only real question was to ask where, if one can give a precise answer, the entertainment value is in an act which, even in jest, promotes or endorses evil, whether it's devil-worship, child molestation, or other such things.

To address your responses to the child molestation issue:

#1- The Michael Jackson case is not analogous for the reason that he wasn't openly endorsing child molesting in his music or shows. After all, if attending the show of an entertainer were equivalent to endorsing the entertainer's private behavior, we all would be endorsing quite a bit of things we personally find disagreeable. My point was never to suggest that anyone who attends a concert by an occult-themed group are themselves endorsing devil-worship. In fact, none of my comments were ever meant to cast aspersions on either the entertainers or the audience. My comments pertain to the nature of the entertainment itself.

#2- I don't have a clue what that even means, so I honestly can't respond to that.

#3- I honestly don't know.

(Incidentally, if one had wanted to protest Michael Jackson's private behavior by not buying his music or by not attending his concerts, that seems like a legitimate way to take a stand for one's principles. But I wouldn't impugn concert attendees merely because they wanted to enjoy some music.)

[Steve Haynie]

Hmmm... This was about serial killer Richard Speck.

The Ballad Of TV Violence

I needed a girl to give me some love
I need some love, gimme your love
Gimme your love

I need a knife to give me a wife
I need a knife, gimme your life
Gimme your life

I need a gun to have me some fun
I need a gun, (gimme your love
Gimme your love)

I need some rope, it's my only hope
(after twenty or so) i just don't know

(verse 1)

I was a lonely boy
I was a lonely boy
I'm not the only boy
I was a lonely boy
I was a lonely boy
I'm not the only boy

(verse 1)

(verse 2)

I need some rope, it's my only hope
And why you fight it so i just don't know

(verse 1)

I was the lonely boy
I was the lonely boy
I'm not the only boy

I'm not the only boy, no
No no no

And then there is this one...

Daddy Should Have Stayed In High School

I've been waiting every night after school
For five long years, five long years!
I'll keep waiting there for five nights a week
'Cause I'm no fool

Ooh reeling and a-rocking
Rolling till the break of
Ooh reeling and a-rocking
Rolling till the school breaks out

I'm thirty, but I feel like sixteen
I might even know your daddy
I'm dirty, but my body is clean
I might even be your daddy

Ooh reeling and a-rocking
Rolling till the break of
Ooh reeling and a-rocking
Rolling till the break of

I like you, will you like me, yes!
Sorry, but I have to grab you
You look better completely undressed
Sorry, but I have to have you

I'm thirty, but I feel like sixteen
How would you like some candy?
I'm thinking more than a kiss
With me, spank me, grab me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE9ewbmCxsg

[Tres Aardvarks]

Everytime I'm reminded that the Stones or Beatles or Elvis were supposedly the devil's music, I can't help but think of Mama in The Waterboy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwTADnsFrPA

[diablo175]

Sure, I never doubted that, to fans, such an act represents escapism. Nor are my comments addressing the ontology off theism. My only real question was to ask where, if one can give a precise answer, the entertainment value is in an act which, even in jest, promotes or endorses evil, whether it's devil-worship, child molestation, or other such things.

For some, it's a matter of theological perspective i.e. the tying in of wrong-doing and an absence of values to a religious perspectives/belief. But wrong-doing ("evil") and f-ed up values are IMO not contingent on belief systems. Nor should they be. Wrong is wrong. Period. The irony here is that much of what Ghost sings about are the hypocrisies of certain belief systems. Are they promoting "evil"? I'm no expert on the entire catalog of Ghost but from what I've heard, at no time did they advocate anything remotely against the law or diametrically opposed to common decent values. A lot of it strikes me as just imagery, "painted" with words, likely designed to create controversy and/or offer up fodder for musing/pondering. If it goes against dogma or tenets of certain organized religions, that's not evil. That's just opposing views re: belief systems.

[FGJ]

Sure, I never doubted that, to fans, such an act represents escapism. Nor are my comments addressing the ontology off theism. My only real question was to ask where, if one can give a precise answer, the entertainment value is in an act which, even in jest, promotes or endorses evil, whether it's devil-worship, child molestation, or other such things.

A lot of it strikes me as just imagery, "painted" with words, likely designed to create controversy and/or offer up fodder for musing/pondering.

Yeah, that's one of the reasons I figured motivated the performers... and I suppose it worked, because here we are.

[alantig]

I think it's as simple as there are some entertainers who prefer to portray the darker elements of mankind. I've just never understood the double standard of musicians facing more scrutiny than filmmakers. The belief seems to be that music is literal and movies/TV are fictitious because of the acting element. It's okay to write the screenplay to "The Exorcist," but it's not okay to write the lyrics on a Venom album. It's okay to portray cops being killed "Reservoir Dogs," but it's not okay for Ice-T to do the same in "Cop Killer."

This. Music is held to a different standard than movies and TV. Frank Zappa put it best - more songs are written about love than anything else, so if music has the power to move you to action, why don't we all love each other.

Sure, I understand that for the fans there's no controversy. I totally get that. I even totally understand the fun of make-believe and role-playing. But as LordOfTheThighs well noted, there's some serious frog-boiling going on if one believes there is any equivalence to, for example, wearing cowboy hats and devil-worship as far as escapism goes (the example used being mine, not his).

Just curious:

Would anyone attend a concert in which the theme centered around a faux act of child-molestation being portrayed in a positive light and/or encouraged on stage? Does anyone see any entertainment value in that? If so, how so? If not, why not?

With all due respect, that's a garbage argument. You're trying to equate an illegal act with disbelief in - or at worst, ridicule of - a particular set of beliefs and/or myths. Are you seriously trying to equate someone's portrayed belief system with child molestation?

[tommy p]

With Ghost, I think it's a joke that we're all in on and it fits the mood of the music. If they didn't have the robes and candles, they would just be BOC.

[Steve Haynie]

With all due respect, that's a garbage argument. You're trying to equate an illegal act with disbelief in - or at worst, ridicule of - a particular set of beliefs and/or myths. Are you seriously trying to equate someone's portrayed belief system with child molestation?

Actually, both acts can be seen as immoral and going against religious teaching. To the truly religious both are equally horrible.

If there is a movie about John Wayne Gacy one day it will bring about a certain level of fandom. It will not make people molest and kill young boys. Marilyn Manson had a keyboard player named Madonna Wayne Gacy. That did not turn anyone away.

Alice Cooper did a song about making love to a corpse: Cold Ethyl. We all have that weird reaction to Gene Simmons singing Christine Sixteen. The further away from what is normal, the easier it is to see it as entertainment. At least Alice Cooper is always punished in his shows.

Ghost is not totally without some good in their shows. Papa Emeritus II did offer positive advise to the audience with his statement "Use a rubber." to promote safe sex.

[alantig]

With all due respect, that's a garbage argument. You're trying to equate an illegal act with disbelief in - or at worst, ridicule of - a particular set of beliefs and/or myths. Are you seriously trying to equate someone's portrayed belief system with child molestation?

Actually, both acts can be seen as immoral and going against religious teaching. To the truly religious both are equally horrible.

If there is a movie about John Wayne Gacy one day it will bring about a certain level of fandom. It will not make people molest and kill young boys. Marilyn Manson had a keyboard player named Madonna Wayne Gacy. That did not turn anyone away.

Alice Cooper did a song about making love to a corpse: Cold Ethyl. We all have that weird reaction to Gene Simmons singing Christine Sixteen. The further away from what is normal, the easier it is to see it as entertainment. At least Alice Cooper is always punished in his shows.

Ghost is not totally without some good in their shows. Papa Emeritus II did offer positive advise to the audience with his statement "Use a rubber." to promote safe sex.

Agreed on the religious argument - but I don't think the original point was that Ghost was good or bad religiously, just good or bad. Despite what every religion thinks, none of them have a monopoly on good.

And Marilyn Manson's whole band (at least up until John 5, I think) had names that combined a model/actress first name with a serial killer last name - Marilyn Manson, Daisy Berkowitz, Twiggy Ramirez, etc.

And Ghost does sell dildos, at least partially as a safe sex thing...

[FGJ]

I think it's as simple as there are some entertainers who prefer to portray the darker elements of mankind. I've just never understood the double standard of musicians facing more scrutiny than filmmakers. The belief seems to be that music is literal and movies/TV are fictitious because of the acting element. It's okay to write the screenplay to "The Exorcist," but it's not okay to write the lyrics on a Venom album. It's okay to portray cops being killed "Reservoir Dogs," but it's not okay for Ice-T to do the same in "Cop Killer."

This. Music is held to a different standard than movies and TV. Frank Zappa put it best - more songs are written about love than anything else, so if music has the power to move you to action, why don't we all love each other.

Sure, I understand that for the fans there's no controversy. I totally get that. I even totally understand the fun of make-believe and role-playing. But as LordOfTheThighs well noted, there's some serious frog-boiling going on if one believes there is any equivalence to, for example, wearing cowboy hats and devil-worship as far as escapism goes (the example used being mine, not his).

Just curious:

Would anyone attend a concert in which the theme centered around a faux act of child-molestation being portrayed in a positive light and/or encouraged on stage? Does anyone see any entertainment value in that? If so, how so? If not, why not?

With all due respect, that's a garbage argument. You're trying to equate an illegal act with disbelief in - or at worst, ridicule of - a particular set of beliefs and/or myths. Are you seriously trying to equate someone's portrayed belief system with child molestation?

Allow me to preface the following comments by saying that I'm simply engaging in a philosophical dialogue here for the sake of having an interesting discussion. I hope no one is taking any of this personally.

Regarding what is or is not "illegal", it should be observed that I never addressed civil law. I was addressing good and evil, or moral propriety if one prefers (or "ethics" for those who prefer the philosophical category). Civil law is an entirely different issue, nor does it provide an objective ground for objective moral imperatives. In fact, civil law reflects morality. For example, civil law forbids murder precisely because murder was already immoral. After all, it's not as if everyone thought it was okay to kill innocent people, and then someone arbitrarily decided to outlaw it, and only then did it suddenly become immoral.

I also wasn't addressing anyone's belief in the devil. That was quite beside the point (which is also why I earlier mentioned that I wasn't addressing the ontology of theism).

The point I was attempting to make was that the devil, in principle, represents the embodiment of all that is evil (this is not solely a theological position, by the way. Even if one takes the devil to be a myth, his being the embodiment of evil has always been an intrinsic part of that myth), so the question (which has yet to be answered) is where is the entertainment value in promoting evil, even in jest? (and note that I already acknowledged the fact that such musicians can be musically talented, so I'm not asking whether anyone finds the music itself entertaining). So if the promotion of evil is fair game for entertainment (or for marketing purposes vis-à-vis controversy), why not another form of evil like child-molesting?

Moreover, if one objected to the faux act of child-molesting on objective moral grounds, another might argue that that is merely his belief and that there is no objective moral prohibition against child-molesting. To be clear, I am not suggesting that I believe child molesting is morally permissible, but only noting that one can argue that a moral objection to child molesting is just as much a "belief" as a moral objection against worshipping the embodiment of evil.

Now I realize some simply insist that the moral prohibition against child-molesting is an objective imperative. But sans any objective ground for such objective moral imperatives (the meta-ethical question), it's not at all clear why one ought to accept the one form of evil while dismissing the other. Again, if one dismisses the moral status of one based on subjective "belief", then it seems anyone can object to the other on the same basis. It seems then that without an objective ground to serve as a standard by which to adjudicate between competing claims, all we're left with is moral relativism, which ultimately cannot provide an objective ground for rejecting a faux act of child-molesting as "entertainment".

Food for thought.

[zorrow]

Hey! I'm a BIG fan of both Mercyful Fate and King Diamond. They claim to be true satanists, though they're in the line of Anton LaVey, which has nothing to do with killing babies and all that BS. But well, I don't care anyway, as I don't take that stuff any seriously at all. I just happen to enjoy their music and their theatrical side. It's just Halloween --at least for me as a consumer.

Ghost is no different from my perspective, although I don't like their music that much.

Last, but not least, I must mention that HELL (from which we have Kev around here) is a slightly different animal, at least from a lyrical point of view -to me their lyrics have much more "depth" than the others'. And I do like their music and their overall offer as a whole... and quite a lot! I won't praise them much more because you'll qualify me as a fanboy, which I'm not -well, not really.

All that to say I don't think the typical Ghost fan is a dumb escapist. I like the other Evil-related bands I mentioned above and I'm not a religious person neither an escapist. When listening to them, I just have a great time, that's all.

[BadgerDave]

It seems then that without an objective ground to serve as a standard by which to adjudicate between competing claims, all we're left with is moral relativism, which ultimately cannot provide an objective ground for rejecting a faux act of child-molesting as "entertainment".

No argument on this point. Ultimately, it comes down to what a significant segment of society will accept without causing complete social outrage . At this moment in time, in certain societies, it is on the edge of acceptability to engage in simulated Satanism as a form of entertainment. Not so in other societies and, in still others, the practice is not shocking or edgy enough to achieve the requisite reaction from those not "in on the joke". Part of the attraction is, as has been discussed here, participating in something outside general social norms. Rock and roll has always (except in the era of arena rock ) relied on the rebel ethic to titillate its fans.

Some forms of social taboos (or evils) are so generally rejected that efforts to incorporate them as shocking elements in entertainment find no (or very small) audiences.

Child molestation, nazism, racism and others are examples. Moral relativism? Sure. To look for an objective explanation presumes that evil is something other than subjective. Most people perceive evil as both subjective and variable in severity. Satanism can be perceived as "less evil" than child molestation and therefore more acceptable as a recreational spectator sport.

[tmsfo]

I want to be Papa Emeritus lll.

[Disturber]

Child molestation, nazism, racism and others are examples. Moral relativism? Sure. To look for an objective explanation presumes that evil is something other than subjective. Most people perceive evil as both subjective and variable in severity. Satanism can be perceived as "less evil" than child molestation and therefore more acceptable as a recreational spectator sport.

Satan is also an entity from fiction and old stories. Like believing in Santa Claus, trolls or ghosts and goblins.

Nazism, child molestation and racism are all real evil issues that we should fight every day. I see little fun in this, but I see a hell of a lot of fun in Satanism (pun intended).

[FGJ]

It seems then that without an objective ground to serve as a standard by which to adjudicate between competing claims, all we're left with is moral relativism, which ultimately cannot provide an objective ground for rejecting a faux act of child-molesting as "entertainment".

Child molestation, nazism, racism and others are examples. Moral relativism? Sure. To look for an objective explanation presumes that evil is something other than subjective.

Yes, my point precisely. If good and evil are merely subjective, then moral notions about good and evil reduce to emotive expressions, e.g., "Child-molesting, Boo!" or "Help a little old lady cross the street, Yay!"

Such expressions really say nothing about our duty or obligations toward one another. If one subscribes to moral relativism, one has no objective moral complaint against the nihilist, sadist, or anarchist who may choose to molest children. And while a particular moral relativist may object to something like child-molesting, all he's really telling us is that he personally doesn't like it. But his subjective disapproval does not oblige others to share his predilections or preferences, nor does it provide a basis for impugning such behavior.

Interesting stuff...